The Bigs Rotation

A big factor has been Hawes' production as a center. Brand isn't as good on offense, but his defense has been just as good if not better than last year.

I think it's a luxury that the Sixers have Hawes who can pass and shoot. We can get away with playing him big minutes because good offensive centers like Bogut and Hibbert are rare.

With Al Horford out the only good offensive centers on a contending team in the East is Roy Hibbert and Dwight Howard. And if Howard gets traded to Golden State or LA, then the Sixers will be in even better shape.

Totally agree. I am dumbfounded by Hawes' turnaround, and I am hoping the other shoe doesn't drop with this guy. I was his one of his biggest detractors last year.

Regarding the increased Hawes/Thad time playing together as bigs, I think it is mainly the defensive end. Both guys have made a significant improvement on defense (and rebounding) this year. If you played them together last year, you would not have stopped anybody, and probably also gotten killed on the glass.

As a team, they're a little below where you'd like to be on the defensive glass (73.5%), but I'm not sure it's really a worrisome problem at that level. Rebounding is the only area they're losing in terms of four factors (they only grab 22.6% of offensive boards as well). They're even going to the line more than their opponents, although they don't go to the line a whole lot at all.

Yup, those three guys have been awesome defensively. It's funny, the numbers are backing up the assumption we've been making for years (that Lou's defense is pitiful) where that really wasn't the case in the past.

Great article. Having a second player bring it every night on the defensive end has made the difference between an above-average defensive team and an elite one. Another point is that the perimeter defenders have covered for the below-average post defenders by collapsing into the paint when the ball enters the post and recovering quickly if the ball gets passed back out.

Thad has been great defending on the perimeter so far, but he's struggled with post defense. I wonder if, going forward, teams will focus more on that when he's in the game. Thankfully, not all teams have backup PFs who can do damage from the post.

Enjoyed the article. I'm glad to see the advanced defensive stats for Jrue supporting the old 'eye test' that he's been a more consistent defender this year. If he could cut out the turnovers and keep up the strong outside shooting, we'll really have something this season.

Well we theoretically know more about the 76ers than say R.C. Buford of the San Antonio Spurs. The GM's don't spend every day watching all of the games, so we've spent more time watching and analyzing the Sixers than they have. So it would make sense that we know more.

You think cause you watch games on tv (or at the stadium) you can know more about any team in the NBA than a GM who has access to information and data yo ucouldn't possibly hope to afford, not to mention scouts whose full time job it is to evaluate teams...seroiusly - just utterly and completely wrong.

Any GM in the NBA has access to more information about the sixers than anyone here (except maybe derek cause he gets super duper synergy sports access and hogs it all for himself :) )

Well he could if he wanted to though - but an informed intelligent gm (like say RC Buford was the example used) does now how to use the available information to him and his scouts to intelligent scout a team - and they just have more data (money and time as well) to do such things...it's an ignored but important part of the NBA...hell bill belichek can't win a super bowl if he can't cheat :)

Seriously though - i've seen (inadvertently) some of that high level synergy sports stuff - damn - we get so little access :)

It isn't all about the data. Watching the games is much more important than knowing the data. If we were in the same division as the Spurs, maybe Buford would know more. But since he doesn't watch any Sixers games that makes it much more difficult for him to know about the team.

Watching the games on TV is much different than watching the film Mr Marzano - and I'm not sure why you think RC Buford knows less about the sixers than you do - in one day he could know more than you do - and if he was thinking about doing a trade with the sixers he'd understand the team and roster and player he was targeting much more deeply and fast than you could.

Whether or not at this moment he knows more is irrelevant to me - he could know more if he wanted to - and you are of the delusion that by watching games on tv that's enough to know a team inside and out - your eye is incapable of observing all 5 players on every play

Ugh. Alright, let's drop this. If Buford was going to trade for someone, he'd probably have a report put together by a scout who watched countless hours of tape and crunched a bunch of numbers. The scouts and GMs have access to a lot more stuff than we do, including isolated video of the player, stuff we don't see on TV (in certain arenas they have cameras on every player, every play).

Now, I don't think Buford, or any GM, has done extensive research into every player. In fact, I think it's a safe bet that you and I have seen more of Iguodala's play than any GM in the league, but they do have the access if they ever needed to make an informed decision.

You guys are both just arguing semantics and it's tiresome. There's plenty of meaningful stuff to talk about.

And I'm also guessing that much like the college football coaches poll - some GM's don't even bother to fill out their own ballots - or just fill em out - it's one of the more ridiculous exercises leagues do in my opinion.

The only more ridiculous exercise is when the players vote on things like this - usually demonstrating that while they might be very good at playing their game - they don't usually understand the meta portions of it :)

Point differential would say they're doing it with smoke and mirrors - their pythag says they should be .500 - but that's only because their early losses were blowouts. Their recent wins have been by solid, though not huge, margins. It appears they're doing it with defense - mostly defense on the shot and a really good turnover differential. Their rebounding's mediocre, some big nights on the boards from Al and Millsap notwithstanding. Millsap, Miles and Watson are the only regulars with really good defensive plus-minus numbers. Bell and Favors, surprisingly, are the two regulars with the worst defensive plus-minus numbers.

I'd be really skittish about making any trades while we're this hot, because I still think we're a .550 team and that we might go and trade the future away because right now we appear - falsely - to be just a piece or so away from contending.

And yet did i say give away the farm? I wouldn't give much up for him to get him if Utah is looking to get rid of him (ESPN Trade machine isn't exactly up to snuff right now - it's being adjusted) - i'm thinking spare parts - nocioni, lou, a pick in the 2012 draft that's top 20 protected or something...if utah is motivated to sell him because of a youth movement - a good gm can take advantage...i'm not really sure i said anything about mortgaging the future but the sixers have a GAPING hole in the front court that isn't going to be fixed by development of anyone on the roster, and in the 20s it's unlikely you get a better talent than millsap

I didn't say anything about what you said. I just said I'm worried that we'll make a bad trade on account of how well we're playing. If Utah does trade Millsap, though, I imagine the best player in the deal will be a little better than Lou, or at least will play a different position than Lou. Utah has Alec Burks and he looks okay. Among guards who play 10 minutes or more, he's already 9th in the league in FTA per minute, and not just because he's a gunner - he's taking 2 foul shots per every 5 shots, which is really good. The utter lack of a three-point shot is a problem, but is perhaps fixable.

(1) trading for Millsap would take a max contract off the table for the Sixers this summer. I'm not doing that unless Howard gets traded to one of his preferred destinations this season.

(2) It's a short-term move, in my eyes. His contract expires the same year as Brand's, so you aren't getting a long term replacement, or if that is your goal, then you can just sign him when Brand expires.

(3) In the short term, I think having Turner adds more to this team than having Millsap does. Millsap isn't big enough to play the five, so he'd just be thrown into the rotation at the four and we've already got two guys to play the four in Thad and Brand. Millsap would provide depth, but his minutes would cut into, or replace theirs. He'd probably be an upgrade (at least if he keeps playing at the level he's playing at so far this season), but the upgrade there isn't worth the downgrade at the 1,2,3.

(4) This team really needs Turner as currently constructed. Without him, you wind up with Lou and/or Meeks playing too many minutes on the perimeter, Lou handling the ball too much, and Nocioni as a regular part of the rotation.

(5) Turner's on his rookie contract, it's costly for a rookie contract since he was a #2 pick, but he's still under control for more seasons, and it would be really hard for him to get away, if the team still wants him.

(6) There's still a chance Turner develops into a better player, a player much better than what Millsap is now or will ever be. I wouldn't trade him for anything less than a better fit with an equally high ceiling, or a guy who makes a big impact on the team as currently constructed. I don't see Millsap as either of those things.

At draft time? Depends. The Wizards traded away Rubio or Steph Curry for Mike Miller and Randy Foye, but I'm not sure there will ever be that dumb of a team with a high draft pick again, that was once-in-a-lifetime idiocy.

Probably if someone has a high pick in this draft, they won't move it. The best chance is to make a deal now gambling on the pick you receive in return, but you'd have to either give up something of great value and/or take back a really bad asset. You could probably do a three-team trade where you take a guy like Marion off of Dallas, you send like Turner and Nocioni to a bad team and get the bad team's upcoming #1 pick. Something like that might work now, but then you'd have to cross your fingers for the lottery.

Oh, and btw. Marion is guy everyone should be keeping their eye on for the next 6 months or so. If Dallas can move him without taking any money back, they might be able to sign Dwight Howard and Deron Williams to play w/ Dirk. That's a big if, though. Marion is owed like $18.5M over the next two years and Dallas literally can't take a cent in return.

Yeah, OK so I looked at the numbers again, and it breaks down like this:

If they amnesty Haywood, buy out Odom ($2.4M), find someone to take Marion (without taking back any salary at all), renounce their bird rights to Terry, Kidd, Brian Cardinal and Mahini, find someone to trade for Beaubois and Dominique Jones w/out taking any money back and cut Sean Williams, then they'd be at $26M for 2 players, plus cap holds for 10 roster spots that would put them somewhere around $35M committed. Two max contracts would run you right around $28M if you're talking just straight free agent signings, so subtract two of the cap holds and it's still REALLY tight. You can pretty much forget about doing a sign-and-trade for either Williams or Howard to max out their contracts, well, because they wouldn't have anyone left to trade, though I guess they could add in Marion/Beaubois/Jones in a trade, but Roddy doesn't make enough money for it to matter and I have no idea why anyone would take Marion back in such a deal.

Of course, if Cuban was willing to amnesty Dirk, then he could clear enough to get both of them pretty easily, or if Orlando wanted to take Dirk back in a sign-and-trade, which seems unlikely on both fronts.

Basically, it's going to be nearly impossible, but Cuban may be able to make it happen if he can find a sucker willing to take on Marion for nothing.

Nah, I was when I was a kid. I watch some games, but the allure completely disappeared for me when all the good players started being one and done. I kind of enjoy seeing the smaller schools who keep a team together for four years competing w/ the big programs, but ultimately it's just inferior basketball to me. I think they play better basketball in the WNBA and I wouldn't watch that either.

Nah, I'd be following a little bit if the Sixers were contending for a top pick, but not w/ the Sixers playing well. I really don't care. I'll get some interest as the draft nears and the guys who might fall to the Sixers are a little more clear. Right now, I just don't care.

Interesting note on Bismack's curious DNP-CD the other day from the Bobcats' Yahoo team report:

"Bismack Biyombo, the seventh overall pick, did not play for the first time in his rookie career against the Cavaliers. D.J. White is so completely out-producing Biyombo that there really aren’t minutes to throw Biyombo’s way."

I'm not sure that's right - neither is rebounding a ton, Bismack blocks way more shots - but White scores a little, and does so efficiently, while Bismack's an offensive zero.

I haven't seen much of him, it's tough to tell whether throwing him into the water is the best way to teach him to swim. If this is a case of the Bobcats thinking White gives them a better chance to win, then I think that's kind of silly. They're a shit team.

Yeah, it seems foolish unless too much playing time is going to destroy his confidence in himself as a player because he's so bad right now. Which isn't the case. Actually I'm watching him now and he looks okay, 4 boards in a few minutes. Though he just got called for traveling.

I think they should probably just avoid him on the offensive end. Have him run around setting screens and then crash the offensive glass. bring him along slowly at that end instead of giving him the ball and expecting him to do something with it from a set position.

Um, I think Bismack has huge one trick pony potential, but that Favors has a great chance of never amounting to much of anything, a little like Kenyon Martin. On the other hand, Favors can play a little on offense. I guess I'll say, Iguodala >>>>>> Favors > Bismack.

Well it doesn't look like this game is going to take much out of Denver. Going to be a battle tomorrow night, and the Sixers really need Turner. I don't want to see Lou defending Andre Miller at all. Actually don't want to see Lou defending Lawson either.

One of the weird features of the Nuggets season so far has been the resurgence of Harrington, and the surgence, if you will (can't call it a resurgence, Brewer was never good) of Brewer. You're seeing a bit of both today. But the really huge development for Denver is Gallinari becoming a pretty good scorer from inside the arc. Excluding three-point shots, he's shooting 54% from the field this year. In past years he was much worse.

For their starters, Nene and Gallinari played less than their season average thus far by about 5-6 minutes per player. The other three starters either played more than their season average or roughly the same (Lawson). Andersen played twice as many minutes from the bench - probably had something to do with their big lead that dwindled to low double digits by the end of the game.

Bucks also played on the second game of a back-to-back.

Let's hope Denver isn't as sharp from the travel and time-zone changes.

Jazz are a pretty weird team. Huge parts of their rotation, including their starting rotation, can't score. You could get away with starting guys like Gordon Hayward and Raja Bell 10 years ago, or giving major minutes to Watson and Miles, but it's hard to do it today. Speaking of which, here's something I don't get. This season, Raja Bell is a 44.4% shooter from the field, a 29.2% shooter from three (so his efg% from three is 43.8%), and a 100% shooter from the foul line. He's taken, however, just three foul shots, and 54 shots total. BKref claims his efg% on the season is 50.9% and his TS% is 52.4%. How can this be? His EFG% should actually be less than his raw FG%, because his EFG% on threes is lower than his FG% overall. And I can't see how three made free throws could bump his TS% 8 points over his FG%. Something's off. Here's the page:

Yeah, that's right. It's weird though; I always thought that the reason efg% is higher than FG% is because (and only because) it counts the threes for more, not because it susses out a high 2-point fg% that the overall fg% masks.